Buy essay on Thomas R. Dew

In his pamphlet, Thomas R. Dew resorts to numerous and varied arguments and refers to the sources authoritative to both parties of the dispute – the supporters of slavery and abolitionists. The first, and of course the main and most recognized source is Bible, the commandments and prescriptions of which could not be outright turned down by anybody as virtually every US citizen, let alone official, belonged to a certain Christian denomination, the teaching of which claimed to be based on the Holy Scripture. Neither an Episcopalian, nor a Methodist, nor a Quaker, nor a Baptist, nor a Lutheran, nor a Presbyterian, nor a Catholic was supposed to say no to any biblical injunction or admonition. Apparently, he counted on decreasing the possible counter arguments and enlisting divine support for slavery in such a way.
The reference to the Holy Writ is the first not only in the value hierarchy of arguments and sources but also in the chain of proslavery theses. The speaker does not reject common sense, and he never argues that slavery is worth establishing or introducing, but he fervently and wholeheartedly supports the preservation of the existent social order – “free white, free coloured, and slave coloured population.” As he openly confesses:
With regard to the assertion, that slavery is against the spirit of Christianity, we are ready to admit the general assertion but deny most positively that there is any thing in the Old or New Testament, which would go to show that slavery, when once introduced, ought at all events to be abrogated, or that the master commits any offence in holding slaves. (293)
Thomas Dew goes then into the scriptural history beginning with the fact that “[t]he Children of Israel themselves were slaveholders, and were not condemned for it” (ibid.) and ending with St Paul’s and St Peter’s recommendations to carry “the yoke” with patience. He points out that slavery was a norm both at the times of Old Testament and in the epoch of Roman Empire, and what is more, that was “a world in which the most galling slavery existed” (ibid.). He admits that imposing slavery may be far from being a laudable initiative, but if it is already established and deeply rooted in the system of social relationships, its abolition may produce a very dramatic and unconceivable result.
2. Having finished giving the biblical references, Dew turns to refutation of Thomas Jefferson’s condemnation of “the moral effects of slavery.” Slavery makes room for despotism and “degrading submission” in the opinion of the third president, and such a tyranny destroys and humiliates the relationships between a slave and his / her master, it is also a bad example for children who are always imitating the behaviour and conduct of their parents and adults in general. “The whole commerce between master and slave […] is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions,” as it is cited by the speaker (294).
Accepting such an angle on the issue, Dew turns it in the opposite direction. If slavery does not restrict the conduct of master, why then should the latter be a cruel and sadistic tyrant? He can exercise the deeds of virtue as well – “look to the slaveholding population of our country, and you everywhere find them characterized by noble and elevated sentiment, by humane and virtuous feeling” (ibid.). He then says that among the most brutal masters are those who were reared in a non-slaveholding society, for example, northern men who marry the women from the south constitute the majority of despotic masters as opposed to the southerners who are accustomed to humane treatment and attitude to the black slaves (ibid.). As a rule, the relations between the owners and the slaves are intimate and warm.
The instances of cruelty to the slaves, in opinion of Dew, “tends rather to strengthen, than weaken the principle of benevolence,” for any decent human despite their origin (Northerner or Southerner), political views, religious convictions, and social stratum abhor any kind of brutality to people, including the slaves.
Trying to disprove the argument of Jefferson, Thomas Dew draws the attention of the audience to the sincerity which is characteristic of a slave when his / her master enjoys success; there is no envy or the similar base feelings as it is seen in free society, where everything is saturated with mercenary and corrupt intentions and motives aiming at receiving maximum profit and blasting the competitors. He also gives example from history, from the feudal epoch – until the law was not interfering with the relationships of the landlord and tenant, their mutual attitude and respect was noble and elevated, but when the law “interposed” between the lord and his serf “the close tie between them began to dissolve” (296). The slavery defence is culminating in the last paragraph of Jefferson rebuttal – “[a] merrier being does not exist on the face of the globe than the negro slave of the United States” (297).
The defence of slavery discourse of Thomas Dew reminds that of animal rights defenders of nowadays. He recognizes even supports humane treatment of the slaves, he says they are provided with good nutrition, and it of course should be so, the masters have unlimited possibilities to manifest their favour and sympathy to their dependants, they have happy childhood and are defended in the old age, but he adamantly refuses them one good – freedom, which is the only thing that is able to put them higher than domestic animals and pets.